PdotMichael
Banned
How is that math related?
Sanders supporters (NOT CAMPAIGN) creating Super Delegate Hit List
- Thread starter johnsmith
- Start date
- Status
How is that math related?
Souldriver
Member
Not fueling the fire, but honest question.
If there are 14 delegates to win in Wyoming, and Sanders got 55.7% while Clinton got 44.3%, doesn't that correspond closer to an 8-6 delegate distribution than a 7-7?
7-7 = 50% - 50%
8-6 = 57% - 43%
If there are 14 delegates to win in Wyoming, and Sanders got 55.7% while Clinton got 44.3%, doesn't that correspond closer to an 8-6 delegate distribution than a 7-7?
7-7 = 50% - 50%
8-6 = 57% - 43%
Hobbestetrician
Member
You would have to cross the 57% number to earn the 8th delegate, not just get close to it.
Souldriver
Member
Ah, that explains it. Didn't know that you have to cross the representative percentage point to gain a delegate.
It's quite similar to what the Sanders campaign does. If Bernie screws up, blame the media, blame Clinton, blame others but never ever take responsibility.
As far as I can tell Souldriver would be basically right if Wyoming just had 14 at-large delegates. See: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D-Math.phtml
So in the case of a 55/45 split, you'd want to give the 55% winner 7.7 delegates and the 45% winner 6.3 delegates. So you go 7-6 and then the 55% winner gets the last delegate because their remainder is larger.
I think that what's going on here is that Wyoming does not actually have 14 at-large delegates. It only looks that way because it just has 1 congressional district. 8 delegates are allocated by congressional district vote, 4 by the at-large vote (which is the same vote as the congressional district vote), and then there are 2 "PLEO"s, which are also basically at-large delegates.
These are each calculated separately. So what's actually happening is that a 55/45 split means that the 55 (45) expects 4.4 (3.6) of the congressional district delegates, 2.2 (1.8) of the at-large delegates, and 1.1 (0.9) of the PLEOs. So in every case the rounding works out in favor of the 45 and you get an even split. If someone had won 56.26% of the vote then the bunch of 8 congressional delegates would have split 5/3 by this method.
Angelus Errare
Banned
And there is a big difference in reason between the two that you'd have to be dumb as rocks to ignore/avoid.
But continue
Won't stop the equivocation tho, many liberals seem to really want to be able to criticize giant imaginary ethnic groups in a discriminatory way. Weird
Right, so perhaps that's what the original statement that I took issue with should have said: Sanders' supporters vision of the direction they want the US to move in is perhaps unrealistic given the current political climate. I won't argue over logistics or feasibility. I will only say that pointing to defense spending, which for the past decade or so has hovered around 5% of GDP and little more than half of healthcare-related federal expenditures, as the primary reason for why the US cannot implement some form of universal health care does not seem like a particularly nuanced or well-thought-out argument.
And you know, there's nothing wrong or novel about drawing inspiration for the direction you'd wish your own country would go down from what other countries have done. This is true of ideas that will fundamentally alter a country and result in political upheaval, as was the case with Republicanism, Democracy, Communism, etc., and it's true of ideas like single-payer healthcare and the expansion of social safety nets. In either case, proponents of the status-quo will always argue that circumstances in their country are too remarkable for those ideas to work.
There's not much point in talking in absolute numbers. There are countries that spend more or around the same amount in defense as a percentage of their GDP and total federal spending that are somehow able to afford universal healthcare and other social safety net programs.
In fact, let's move past Europe and what we traditionally regard as the first world for a moment: moving towards some implementation of publicly-funded universal healthcare and other "socialized" programs is the trend in much of the developing world. Healthcare is enshrined as a right in many of these countries' constitutions.
You know you open yourself up to be misinterpreted when all you make is an over-arching, off-the-cuff, snide remark about Sanders' supporters and their "idiotic vision of the world". It's not me being dense; you're just bad at relaying what you actually want to say, as evidenced by the fact that somebody else who replied to your comment also thought it was a reference to policy.
But sure, if what you really wanted to say is that Bernie supporters who complain about superdelegates have an idiotic, stupid vision of the US democratic process, then you're right about that, at least.
That's why I said "free or affordable"... I fail to see the relation between the economics of higher education and Primary/Secondary Education reform that would make the idea of free College "all sorts of hilarious" or what sorts of hoops in logic you had to jump through to conclude that wanting free College means you don't want education reform overall. Bernie's platform does talk about K-12 education reform. The merits of his proposals in that front are another matter entirely, but that suffices to show that his platform isn't singularly about free higher education as you disingenuously tried to claim. It seems you're just trying to be snide and arrogant for the sake of it.
The good thing about this is that it actually also applies to policy too.
If you follow the Bernie Bro version of Sanders policy, it absolutely is an idiotic vision of the world.
I don't mean Sanders's vision or the reasonable version of Sanders's policies but the fringe group which (I hope) is the subject of this thread.
I don't believe Sanders policy is realist but it actually make sense, the kind of idiot who makes a hit list of super delegate for god knows what reason? Nah, they're basically the left wing version of Trump supporters you see in the media.
However considering the message sent by Sanders's campaign regarding the primary, you could easily extend my comment to Sanders's campaign.
I won't fault the most fringe element for following what their candidate is saying.
If he was serious about education reform that would be the message you hear more than "free, affordable" college or whatever.
In politics, optics matter more than nearly anything.
If he's elected and break his promise on "free" college you will have people notice because it's the center of his message.
If he does the same for education reform? Who even remembers that's part of his platform anyway?
Considering the state of the education system in the US, prioritizing college even in the messaging reeks of pandering more than honest proposal to make the situation.
I may seem snide and whatever but that's probably because he's the spitting image of the type of politician that put the country into debt while always deflecting the issue on someone else. Believe me I've seen that type more than I care to admit and I haven't seen anything from the campaign showing that he is in any way different.
legacyzero
Banned
The Super Delegate bullshit is what's frustrating. Even if Hillary wins, we could do without them.
No, it's really not. It's fine, it is only a real issue in the minds of conspiracy theorists.
legacyzero
Banned
No elected official should have ANY say in any election unless absolutely necessary. They should of course get their own vote as a citizen, but nothing more.
(IMO of course)
Also a good thing IMO
Then you remove the entire point of political parties.
Parties are always going to exist. Even if you officially banned them they would still de-facto exist and the First Amendment protects their existence.
Just think of them as banks that loan people branding and money to get towards office and they make more sense.
If you want to fix elections the more important fixes are 1) get rid of FPTP and 2) move to publically funded elections.
Just think of them as banks that loan people branding and money to get towards office and they make more sense.
If you want to fix elections the more important fixes are 1) get rid of FPTP and 2) move to publically funded elections.
But...this isn't a government election. It's a private organization picking their own representative.
Except this isn't an election, it's just a political party deciding who their candidate is. The real Election isn't until November. If the DNC wanted to say "screw this, Hillary is the nominee no matter what" they could. They never would because of the backlash from the party (even those who support Clinton, like me) but it's their party and they can do whatever they want with it.
Super Delegates aren't even going to come into play, but I still like the fact that they're there. I'd almost guarantee you're going to see the RNC implement something similar before the next election because a Super Delegate system would stop a Trump candidacy in it's tracks.
They prevent someone who is just pretending to be affiliated with the party from hijacking the process like you see happening with the Republicans right now (although it appears they'll be able to stop him at the convention)
I'm not sure why you related GDP to military spending. Do you mind explaining why you did this? I'm having a tough time understanding why I would want to think about budgets as based on national GDP.
& sure, I don't disagree with your second paragraph, but... I'm not seeing how Sanders is unique in this regard. The Democratic Party generally pushes for these ideals.
Why should we support Sanders when any of the Democratic nominees do the same thing anyway?
Ooh this is really interesting.
Not that pie chart again...
Discretionary spending is not the same thing as the total federal budget. It's actually a rather small part. The total federal budget actually looks like this:
Defense and homeland security account for much, much less of the total federal budget than people believe.
EDIT: Switched chart for 2016 version.
Hoho for breakfast
Member
It's fine to you. It's fine in your opinion.
Think about the Caucuses. They can be a complete joke and yet there is only a small uproar over them right now. And that's because they're working in Bernie Sanders favor, but he's the losing candidate anyway so it doesn't matter as much to people. If they were working in Clintons favor, or if Bernie Sanders were winning because of them, there would be a much bigger uproar.
What I'm saying is if you really think there's no issue with SDs fine. That's your opinion. Others should feel free to disagree with that opinion though without you having to resort to calling them conspiracy theorists. I can see you're smarter than that.
The fact and the bottom line to me is there are a very few (the SDs) who make up a disproportionately large amount of the vote. In my opinion that's a problem when they can vote against the people they are supposed to represent.
Superdelegates only make up 15% of overall delegates. I wouldn't call that disproportionately large. The democratic nominee is still overwhelmingly decided by the people.
I don't necessarily think it's wrong that the people who make up the functioning body of the party get an independent say in selecting the nominee. It makes the selection of a nominee a two part process that requires candidates to not only court voters, but to court and build coalitions within the very party they're hoping to represent. Not only does this ward off fringe candidates, it ensures that whoever is selected, should they win White House, can hit the ground running on day 1 with the full support of the Democratic party behind them...and not just be a lone wolf who didn't give much of a shit about the party until the year before they decided to run for president.
What percentage of the vote they command is a good debate, but I don't disagree with their existence. I felt this way even in '08, when they fled my candidate en masse to support Obama.
BlastProcessing
Member
Political parties formed for a reason and if you waved a wand and got rid of them today they would almost immediately reform. I am not sure how you can argue that citizens should not have the right to organize themselves.
Yes, of course. That's why I said it.
Thinking SD's are going to steal the election, or have any effect other then to confirm the winner of the pledged delegate race, is a conspiracy theory. It's a fear based on nothing.
They are not supposed to represent any people. They represent the Democratic Party. No one is elected to be a SD in a general election, they are awarded that position by the DNC. It is their job to vote in a manor that they feel will be best for the party. And, unless something monumental happens, what is best for the party will always be to confirm the candidate that won the primary season.
Sure worked in Mr Smith Goes to Washington.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked